The Mayor’s Baseball Survey Statistics!

While the Mayor is taking the heat for what a few are calling a biased survey, others are grateful for the opportunity to voice their opinions.

There were 15 questions that were yes, no questions.  Two allowed additional comments.  One regarding artificial turf and #16 at the end for general comments.

We were impressed that 115 residents took the time to write general comments at the end of the survey.  Of those 115, 89 had some concerns with the plan: location at park instead of on school property, cost to taxpayers, scope of project, design details.

This project has been in planning stages for about 3 years. It seems clear that many of the concerns voiced through the survey should have been addressed much earlier in the process.  Perhaps a lesson learned as to transparency and public involvement.  

Summary of some statistics from week four of the survey, Click here.

One interesting email we got: “Who can we trust with critical decisions that impact the community? We sure can’t trust the Village Council to listen and do what’s best.  And the School Board seems even worse.”

But rarely does the public show up in person to voice their opinions.

In a continuing effort to inform and educate the residents of current events, mandates and issues that affect the lives of residents and our unique environment, I submit the following:

Last week our editorial discussed “affordable housing”. We were concerned about Monroe County Facebook page advertising of 12 Southcliff Estates apartments:

• 1 bedroom apartments for$2,995/month.

• Required minimum income listed:$71,880;

• eligible tenants: tourism industry employees only.

The $2,995/month for rent is over the top and not realistic!  

It wasn’t long before Monroe County had several hundred comments regarding their posted ad, and the public reaction was overwhelmingly negative.

So what did the County do?  

They removed the opportunity to comment on their Facebook page and removed all the prior comments.

Will Southcliff rental rates be discussed at the upcoming August 20 commission meeting? Let’s hope so because yes, there is a problem, Commissioners.

What have we learned since last week?

As to the rent: On July 16. 2025 the County Commission removed a deed restriction placed on the property in 2022 specifying that the 1-bedroom units would be low income housing for at least the next 99 years.

The County Commissioners replaced it with a new deed restriction making the units moderate income housing for the next 99 years.

What’s the difference? Maximum rent limit for low income would have been $2085/month, about a $1,000 less than the new deed restriction.

Still high, but better.

The TDC funding, approved by the Florida Legislature and used to pay for the County purchase of the property specifies moderate income housing and therefore the higher maximum rent is allowed… but not required. 

A majority of our hospitality workers would probably fall into the low income category, not moderate.

Our legislators should be asked why the moderate? They should know the plight of our hospitality workers.  But they also know that the category simply sets an absolute  maximum limit for rent. And provides flexibility. Who would have guessed the County would ask close to the maximum rent and blame it on the legislature?  

Both low and moderate limits are higher than what is needed to address our problem.

Monroe County Median Income problem:

The limits are calculated based on the current median income for Monroe County: $118,000. A number that goes up dramatically, year after year, as our middle class is priced out of the Keys, replaced by the millionaires and corporate buyers.

The county purchased the housing with a majority of “free” money from the TDC, (nothing is free) not funds from their own accounts.

The County should provide what was intended – a rent break for members of the workforce.

The minimum salary advertised at $71,880 was based on the rent of $2,995 being 50% of the annual income. If the rent is $2000/month, the minimum salary would be $48,000 – not $71,880.

It is essential that the low income workers receive a rent commensurate with their income.

We ask the County Commissioners to make the adjustment at their meeting on the 20th of August.

As to the purchase of the Southcliff Estates:

The purchase contract details the source of funds:

• $6,867,100 with TDC funding for 11 units, from the $35 million TDC excess

• $654,549 of Infrastructure Sales to purchase the 12th unit.

• Total cost including closing costs, water and wastewater charges: $7,521,649

The nearly $6.9 million from TDC is the allocation for TDC District IV (Long Key

through Islamorada) and District V (Tavernier and Key Largo). We are guessing this purchase may have used all or most of the $35 million TDC funds for projects north of the Long Key Bridge.

Wake up Islamorada! Doesn’t the Village have any possible affordable housing projects? Several current Village Council members spent years on our Affordable Housing Committee.

Possible motive for the high rent:

The purchase of the Southcliff Estates12 units includes enough land, with existing permits, for another 16 affordable units – total of 28 on the property.

The County seems to want the occupants of the first 12 units to contribute to future expansion. Residents who can least afford it.

A County document (page 2) indicates the high rent is to assure the county can cover Southcliff costs for things like insurance without increasing taxes. But at full occupancy the revenue for the 12 units at $2,995 would be over $430,000/year.

Also on the Aug 20 Commission Agenda: The council is being asked to reserve 146 affordable ROGO allocations for the property immediately to the north, adjoining Southcliff Estates. Between the two projects… a cluster of 174 affordable units.

This housing is definitely needed! But why as one large very dense neighborhood?

The County code limits incentives for “workforce housing” to projects no greater than 20 units without special processing. The logical desire is to scatter the housing throughout the Upper Keys.

We ask our County, Village and state legislatures to listen to the people.

It is what you are elected to do.

Make the obvious changes for your residents.

As always,

Tom Raffanello

Reply to: ICA.in.Keys@gmail.com

From the Desk of Tom Raffanello, President of the Islamorada Community Alliance: In a continuing effort to inform and educate the residents of current events, mandates and issues that affect the lives of residents and our unique environment, I submit the following:

“Affordable Housing”- a never-ending problem no closer to solutions decades later!

A week ago, many of us were shocked and angered when Monroe County advertised Southcliff Estates workforce housing units for rent in the Upper Keys.  The MM95 units are all 1 bedroom units, 3 buildings with 4 units in each building – feet away from the right of way of U.S. One. 

The rent - $2,995 per month! $35,940 per year.

Occupants must work in a tourist related industry and their income must be at least $71,880, double the annual rent so tenants will have 50% of their income left to pay for transportation, food, clothes, insurance, and utilities (water is covered as part of the lease).

Last year the state legislature approved using $35 million in bed tax excesses from Tourist Development Council (TDC) for affordable housing.  But only for employees in the tourist industry. No firemen, no police officers, no teachers.  

The County purchased these 12 newly built units at Southcliff Estates, a month ago using part of the $35 million from the TDC. They paid $7,310,900 for the 12 units, closing 6/30/2025. 

The only practical way we can ever provide significant affordable housing in the Keys is with some type of government subsidies. Land and building costs are just too high.

Wasn’t the TDC funding intended to be used as a subsidy to make workforce housing available at an affordable price?  $2995 for a 1-bedroom rental is far from affordable.

Come on, Monroe County – use this money for the intended purpose –to make housing that is affordable.  Where’s the subsidy?  You don’t need to charge close to the maximum allowed.  You got the funding from TDC and still make the tourist industry worker pay what we believe is above market rate? Not right.

Examples of government subsidies that exist: The Village of Islamorada has provided numerous subsidies for affordable housing projects. Even with some Village taxpayers struggling to pay their own bills.

• The Village taxpayers have provided numerous properties to Habitat – either leasing at minimal cost or donating land.  The property near Plantation Key School was purchased for over $1 million and gifted to Habitat for affordable housing. 

• The Village provides $10,000 to first time homeowners for down payments for many of the Habitat homes.

• The Federal Government provides tax credits for developers to cover significant costs of building affordable housing like the Wet Net on Upper Matecumbe. 

This doesn’t make a dent in what we need.

Who checks occupancy: The local governments have a responsibility to not only help with subsidies but also in compliance efforts to assure those that qualify for affordable housing are the ones occupying the homes.  

Median Income is a huge problem: Our affordable housing rates follow HUD requirements.  Base rates are calculated using the County’s median income. 

Monroe County median income may be the highest in the state at $118,000.

Rental rates for workforce housing at Southcliff Estates and other housing projects should be based on the income level of workers you want to house, not a countywide median that makes the rents impossible for the targeted workers!

The median income here is very high.   You have to be pretty affluent to live here.  And thus we have to import our workforce from the mainland. Few can afford the high cost of living in paradise.

In order to begin to solve this problem, can we set our own standards instead of using the current median income formula for establishing qualified rent limits for workforce housing?

Imported workers from mainland: In the Upper Keys we have been able to import thousands of employees from the mainland.  That supply is diminishing as mainland industry continues to grow and thrive in South Dade. Won’t it eventually be more enticing for workers to work closer to home. Sometimes the buses are full. Tired workers must stand in the crowded bus aisleways for hours getting through Keys traffic back to the mainland. How long will they put up with that?

Bottom line- we are approaching a critical point. Special circumstances dictate special action by all government entities involved.

Top Priority? The local Keys governments say that they have placed workforce housing at the top of their priority list of our most critical needs. Then they need to take some special measures and truly address the problem!

Consider giving rent subsidies to existing rental housing to make up the difference in rent to property owners renting long term.

When rents at Southcliff Estates are collected, what entity benefits from the $2995 rent for the “affordable housing”? Can the profits be used for first responders, teachers and nurses?

Many questionable government decisions keep increasing the cost of living in the Keys.

It is making our islands less and less affordable to the middle class and to workers?

Half of Islamorada’s government budget goes to pay staff yet only a few members of our staff can afford to live here.  Over a hundred employees live outside Village limits but they receive salaries as if they resided in the Village with its high cost of living.

We were excited when the Florida Legislature actually approved the $35 million in TDC funding for affordable housing projects. We sure don’t need tens of millions a year in bed tax funds spent to attract more tourists.  Bed tax should provide significant funding for the impact tourism creates… paying a fair share for public safety, roads, infrastructure and parks. 

Here’s a couple proposals:

• Lobby the legislature to change TDC requirements so bed tax can be spent regularly on all impacts of tourism, particularly affordable housing and public safety.  Especially in an area of critical state concern.

• Islamorada bought the Island Community Church last August, but apparently has no practical use for it.  Lease the land (and the Machado property too) to a developer, like Gorman, as the Village did with the Wet Net, to create truly affordable housing.  (The Wet Net 3-bedroom townhomes rent for under $2000/month, some much less, due to subsidies.)

We should abandon the failed track we are on and take bold steps.

Legislators!!  Are you listening?

Help us make this work!

Remember, elections have consequences and this is just another one.

As always,

Tom Raffanello

Reply to: ICA.in.Keys@gmail.com